How To Prevent Nuke Disasters Here

May 4, 1986|By Michael Mariotte, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

The accident at the Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear complex is a tragic reminder of the inherent dangers of nuclear energy. There are many differences between the U.S. and Soviet nuclear power programs, not the least of which is the degree of public participation in the reactor licensing process here.

Although it is possible that a catastrophe as serious as the one at Chernobyl could happen here, the odds against it are longer because U.S. citizens actively have challenged unsafe reactor designs, shoddy construction and unsound evacuation plans.

Now, however, a number of proposals that would speed plant licensing and severely limit citizen participation are being considered in the U.S. Congress. All of them contain the same key component: a one-step licensing process that would reduce public participation in nuclear plant regulation.

Presented as licensing ''reform,'' such legislation is more accurately described as licensing deregulation.

Currently a utility must obtain two permits: one to build a nuclear plant and another to begin operating it. Citizens and local governments can challenge the utility's application at both points.

Under the ''one-step'' proposal, a utility would receive a construction permit and an operating license at the same time, before construction had even started.

Only a cursory Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection would be required before operations could begin, and it would be hard for citizens to challenge the kind of deficient emergency plans and slipshod construction that has been associated with so many plants.

As former NRC Commissioner Victor Gilinsky put it, one-step licensing ''makes about as much sense as handing an incoming freshman his college diploma.''

Any legislation that aims to reduce the public's role in reactor licensing would, in effect, make our regulatory procedure more like the Soviets'. It should be soundly defeated.